Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Mention HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) to a typical CEO, and boredom sets in. Many corporate leaders remain unaware of the risks of HIPAA non-compliance, but the Act includes a criminal statute that creates vast potential exposure for health care providers and other players in the health care “data trade.”
Enacted in 1996, HIPAA was meant to increase “the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by facilitating the exchange of information with respect to health plans, health care clearinghouses and health care providers who transmit information in connection with [financial and administrative] transactions.” South Carolina Medical Assoc. v. HHS, 327 F.3d 346, 348 (4th Cir. 2003).
To encourage the trend toward the exchange of computerized health care information, HIPAA mandated the promulgation of uniform electronic exchange standards, see 42 U.S.C. ' 1320d-2(a)(1), and “national standards to protect the security and privacy” of that information. See 68 Fed. Reg. 18895, 18896 (April 17, 2003).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?